Read an article about it - it said that she had purposely placed her car blocking a street to try and block ICE officers from carrying out a raid.
I’ve read a bunch of articles over the past 24 hours, I’ll see if I can find it.
In any event, nobody disputes that she tried to drive off rather than submit to being detained - which is illegal.
He was a firearms trainer. Good thing we put him in charge of training others to do this.
This makes no sense. Right before the agents from the truck got out of their car and confronted her, she waved past a ford explorer that I believe had the agent in it that shot her a few moments later. She was literally surrounded by ICE, with one agent reaching into her car while trying to pull the door open. She would not have had her window down if she was attempting to cause problems. It was down because she was trying to cooperate. The agent reaching in and pulling on her door absolutely would have triggered a flight response where she would not have even realized that the other two from the explorer were now in front of her car.
That’s my take. If you want to repeat some BS from another article with a different take, go right ahead, but it better have more evidence than what we have in the videos.
It seems way less illegal than an officer shooting her in the face for disobeying an order.
That’s assuming there was even an order communicated.
There is video of her being told to get out of the vehicle. I’ve seen people say that there is also video of her being told to move the vehicle to get out of the way, so it is possible that she was given contradictory orders (I’m not willing to rewatch the videos to determine if the latter is true).
I don’t think things are “more illegal” or “less illegal”. Either it’s illegal or it’s not. Severity of the crime is a different issue. I fully agree, as I wrote above, that the officer was wrong for shooting, and he should be held accountable. My only point was that she was not in innocent “legal observer” - she was also in the wrong.
Different but extremely relevant and an important outcome that can’t be ignored.
Conflicting orders sounds plausible given there were 4 separate officers involved coming from two different vehicles.
Okay, I’ll wait for that. Hopefully your article includes video taken before she was in the roadway. I see a white vehicle that seems to also be blocking the roadway in the videos at the moment of the shooting.
No, this is just a complete dickbag thing to say.
Assume if you want that she was blocking traffic, that they were lawfully arresting her, that she was resisting arrest, etc. These are all misdemeanors, and you don’t spit on the dead for committing misdemeanors.
You spit on the dead if you believe Dear Leader that she was a killer, sure. But you don’t believe that.
This is not illegal.
I understand and agree with the “we should follow the law”. What is making it particularly troublesome is our own government is not following the law in failing to grant the constitutional right to due process. This is a huge problem, even larger than the other rules and procedures they are not following. The limits on government power must be enforced.
+1. Obstruction of justice, if it even occurred, is not a capital offense.
Even if it was, it would be proper for the death sentence to come after a trial and sentencing.
Also you’re saying “both sides” here but you’re not describing both sides.
Many on the left would roughly agree with you. We might disagree with you on some details here, but not wildly so. I can see where you’re coming from, and you can see where I’m coming from. And where we can’t agree, we can let the courts decide.
It is only one side, the Right, Dear Leader, his cronies, Fox News, that has chosen a weird impossible extreme that actually she tried to kill him.
The most plausible defense for the agent’s actions is he felt he was in immediate danger for his life and it was the only timely recourse he had. I haven’t heard much supporting this, but I also will not, for the sake of my own mental health, investigate further, so I will not hold a personal conclusion regarding this particular encounter.
However, I will say that normalizing this kind of event as a unavoidable cost of enforcement is not OK. We need to be doing things better.
They did say that he was once hit and dragged by a vehicle in the past - could be that now he was reacting to trauma from that?
In any case, as I wrote earlier, he should be held accountable for it. Given the circumstances of the case, I think that means a manslaughter charge. I don’t think it rises to a murder charge.
Right-wingers are saying she tried to kill him. Hard disagree on that.
Left wingers are saying she was an innocent “legal observer”. Hard disagree on that as well.
Unfortunately, you are right. Too many folks actually agree with these wing nuts.
Everyone you are talking to here is a left winger. Nobody here would say she is definitively perfectly innocent. The only thing we know for certain is that she didn’t try to kill him.
Fair enough. But there are definitely left-wingers who are claiming she was perfectly innocent.
There are plenty of right-wingers who don’t think she was trying to kill him. Myself included (although it’s debatable if I’m a right-winger).